Can someone to explain why Northwest states (I mean only Washington and Oregon) are fairly liberal? Huge majority of population is white and there is a little minorities. (quite much Asian though) So there is no "natural" reason for this blooming of liberalism.

Of course Democrats' support is concentrated Seattle's and Portland's metropolitan areas, but there is also pretty liberal areas in Washington rural coast region (some poor fishing villages, I assume) and in western Oregon. In Dave's election maps there are lot of red colour in these rural areas at least since 1960. (As your know there is no countylevel information before 1960 in Dave's pages)

I suppose that there was economy boom in Northwest. Right? But how you explain these rural liberals?

I have to admit, I'm not a sociologist, but I can tell you that there was growth out west at the time. The west coast became the Mecca of liberal culture (San Francisco, Berkley, Seattle). So they started to move out there in droves.

Most of the people who moved to California were from the Northeast, so even the rural areas are very similar to the northest in voting paterns.

But already in 1960 election Kennedy won almost all Washington and Oregon rural coast region counties, But he didn't win in Seattle and in Portland!

Radical or Socialist positions have a long history in the rural West. Just look at Debs', LaFollette's or Bryan's percentages there. (I think Bryan is where it started.) THe IWW's membership was mostly concentrated out there (though concentrated is maybe the wrong word). Eastern Washington is logging country, Northern California once was mining country, in other words, extremely bluecollar (Cowboys are another bluecollar population group...) So the question is not so much when it began, but why it died out on the interior but survived on the coasts. And here, I guess, supersoulty's immigrants come into play, though I think much more for North California than for Wash. & Ore. In other words: Leftie strongholds in the middle of the Utah desert died out, people moving to neighboring areas, people moving in, the young not taking up the idelogy from the old. But due to an influx of Left Wingers of a different sort, these ideas remained viable in the coastal areas. The two traditions kind of interbred. It's a rough outline of course, but I guess it's pretty much what happened.

Can someone to explain why Northwest states (I mean only Washington and Oregon) are fairly liberal? Huge majority of population is white and there is a little minorities. (quite much Asian though) So there is no "natural" reason for this blooming of liberalism.

Of course Democrats' support is concentrated Seattle's and Portland's metropolitan areas, but there is also pretty liberal areas in Washington rural coast region (some poor fishing villages, I assume) and in western Oregon. In Dave's election maps there are lot of red colour in these rural areas at least since 1960. (As your know there is no countylevel information before 1960 in Dave's pages)

The reasons for the liberalism in the Northwest are complicated, but one thing you mention interests me. As you say, the Northwest is very white, with few minorities. The same could be said of places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and some of the liberal states of New England. Many Southern states, which are only 60-70% white are strongly Republican in spite of near total Democrat voting by the minority groups. Also, even California, which is very Democratic has a very large percentage of its white minority that are conservative Republicans. The obvious generalization is this - whites are more liberal when they are living in segregation, and much more conservative when living with other races.

Can someone to explain why Northwest states (I mean only Washington and Oregon) are fairly liberal? Huge majority of population is white and there is a little minorities. (quite much Asian though) So there is no "natural" reason for this blooming of liberalism.

Of course Democrats' support is concentrated Seattle's and Portland's metropolitan areas, but there is also pretty liberal areas in Washington rural coast region (some poor fishing villages, I assume) and in western Oregon. In Dave's election maps there are lot of red colour in these rural areas at least since 1960. (As your know there is no countylevel information before 1960 in Dave's pages)

The reasons for the liberalism in the Northwest are complicated, but one thing you mention interests me. As you say, the Northwest is very white, with few minorities. The same could be said of places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and some of the liberal states of New England. Many Southern states, which are only 60-70% white are strongly Republican in spite of near total Democrat voting by the minority groups. Also, even California, which is very Democratic has a very large percentage of its white minority that are conservative Republicans. The obvious generalization is this - whites are more liberal when they are living in segregation, and much more conservative when living with other races.

The generalization could also be that white people living in racist areas are more Republican than those living in non-racist areas. Then again, generalizations can be hazardous...

But already in 1960 election Kennedy won almost all Washington and Oregon rural coast region counties, But he didn't win in Seattle and in Portland!

Radical or Socialist positions have a long history in the rural West. Just look at Debs', LaFollette's or Bryan's percentages there. (I think Bryan is where it started.) THe IWW's membership was mostly concentrated out there (though concentrated is maybe the wrong word). Eastern Washington is logging country, Northern California once was mining country, in other words, extremely bluecollar (Cowboys are another bluecollar population group...) So the question is not so much when it began, but why it died out on the interior but survived on the coasts. And here, I guess, supersoulty's immigrants come into play, though I think much more for North California than for Wash. & Ore. In other words: Leftie strongholds in the middle of the Utah desert died out, people moving to neighboring areas, people moving in, the young not taking up the idelogy from the old. But due to an influx of Left Wingers of a different sort, these ideas remained viable in the coastal areas. The two traditions kind of interbred. It's a rough outline of course, but I guess it's pretty much what happened.

Exactly what is a "racist" area? By your definition, that is an area that contains only white people, who claim to be extremely tolerant of minorities, as long as there are no minorities around to be tolerant of. The term "limousine liberal" comes to mind. Tolerance is very easy when it demands nothing of you.

I think there is something to the observation that whites who live with other races are more conservative than those who do not. If you live in an area in which you are paying a real price for liberal policies, in terms of failing education, high taxes, and high crime, then yes, you may well become less "tolerant" of the liberal policies that are hurting your quality of life than you would be if you were living in areas where liberal policies don't have that same cost. And because liberal policies hold that white people are to blame for all problems, these policies tend to pit white people against others, and push whites away from those policies, in a way that does not happen where the races do not live together, such as in Vermont or Oregon.

I live in a "liberal" area that is very "tolerant." On the block on live on now, I have never seen a single non-white person (other than those who have come to visit me). I live right now our local high school, and I have never seen a single black kid going into that school, though the statistics say that it is all of 1% black. When I sold my last house, a couple of my neighbors passed warnings to me about not selling my house to blacks. There is no public housing -- it would never be allowed. And yet it is a mecca of "tolerance" according to those who live here.

Right next door to my town is a city with significant numbers of blacks and Puerto Ricans. It has high taxes, high crime and bad schools. Of course, the whites living there are very "racist" and make sure they live in separate neighborhoods from blacks, and that their kids are in private schools. But are they really any less "tolerant" than those in my town who mouth tolerance, but make sure they live miles away from any minorities? The people in my town simply have more economic options, and that allows them to make a fake pose of tolerance that those living in mixed areas can't make without significantly, and perhaps fatally, compromising their quality of life.

I personally have no tolerance for limousine liberals who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Can someone to explain why Northwest states (I mean only Washington and Oregon) are fairly liberal? Huge majority of population is white and there is a little minorities. (quite much Asian though) So there is no "natural" reason for this blooming of liberalism.

Of course Democrats' support is concentrated Seattle's and Portland's metropolitan areas, but there is also pretty liberal areas in Washington rural coast region (some poor fishing villages, I assume) and in western Oregon. In Dave's election maps there are lot of red colour in these rural areas at least since 1960. (As your know there is no countylevel information before 1960 in Dave's pages)

The reasons for the liberalism in the Northwest are complicated, but one thing you mention interests me. As you say, the Northwest is very white, with few minorities. The same could be said of places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and some of the liberal states of New England. Many Southern states, which are only 60-70% white are strongly Republican in spite of near total Democrat voting by the minority groups. Also, even California, which is very Democratic has a very large percentage of its white minority that are conservative Republicans. The obvious generalization is this - whites are more liberal when they are living in segregation, and much more conservative when living with other races.

The generalization could also be that white people living in racist areas are more Republican than those living in non-racist areas. Then again, generalizations can be hazardous...

Its possible that your generalization follows directly from mine - familiarity breeding contempt, etc. But I think that 'racism' is a bit of a strong word. Just because two population groups, largely corresponding to two races, see their political interests as diametrically opposed, does that mean they're racists?

[Its possible that your generalization follows directly from mine - familiarity breeding contempt, etc. But I think that 'racism' is a bit of a strong word. Just because two population groups, largely corresponding to two races, see their political interests as diametrically opposed, does that mean they're racists?

The "racist" label is something that liberals like to throw on anybody who doesn't support their policies, or any white person who opposes anything that is intended to benefit minorities. It's a word that no longer has any meaning to me.

My own experience is that everybody is racist to one degree or another. There is mindless racism that is rooted in the need to look down on somebody, and then there is "self-interest" racism that is simply rooted in a desire to avoid problems that will compromise your own quality of life. Even some blacks practice "self-interest" racism in avoiding some heavily black areas that are filled with crime and decay.

I have also observed no real difference in the level of racism between "liberal" and "conservative" parts of the country. In the liberal northeast, the black population lives almost completely separately from the white population. These liberal areas that have blacks are no meccas of tolerance, whatever claims liberals may make. There is a phoniness and hypocrisy that is mind-boggling among limousine liberals.

[Its possible that your generalization follows directly from mine - familiarity breeding contempt, etc. But I think that 'racism' is a bit of a strong word. Just because two population groups, largely corresponding to two races, see their political interests as diametrically opposed, does that mean they're racists?

The "racist" label is something that liberals like to throw on anybody who doesn't support their policies, or any white person who opposes anything that is intended to benefit minorities. It's a word that no longer has any meaning to me.

My own experience is that everybody is racist to one degree or another. There is mindless racism that is rooted in the need to look down on somebody, and then there is "self-interest" racism that is simply rooted in a desire to avoid problems that will compromise your own quality of life. Even some blacks practice "self-interest" racism in avoiding some heavily black areas that are filled with crime and decay.

I have also observed no real difference in the level of racism between "liberal" and "conservative" parts of the country. In the liberal northeast, the black population lives almost completely separately from the white population. These liberal areas that have blacks are no meccas of tolerance, whatever claims liberals may make. There is a phoniness and hypocrisy that is mind-boggling among limousine liberals.

I just wanted to point out that some generalizations can be a little dangerous. Southern politics seem to be dominated by blacks voting one way, and whites the other, and currently the GOP is the party for the whites. So I don't think that the situation there can be compared to that of other parts of the country. I think it primarily depends on what kind of experiences you get. If the majority of immigrants or people with another skin colour, that you have met have been criminals, then you're more likely to become racist, and vice versa.

I don't if there's much point in attacking sterotypes, like "limousine liberals", so I won't start with "redneck conservatives"...

I just wanted to point out that some generalizations can be a little dangerous. Southern politics seem to be dominated by blacks voting one way, and whites the other, and currently the GOP is the party for the whites. So I don't think that the situation there can be compared to that of other parts of the country. I think it primarily depends on what kind of experiences you get. If the majority of immigrants or people with another skin colour, that you have met have been criminals, then you're more likely to become racist, and vice versa.

I don't if there's much point in attacking sterotypes, like "limousine liberals", so I won't start with "redneck conservatives"...

The difference between limousine liberals and redneck conservatives is that redneck conservatives come much closer to practicing what they preach.

In most areas where blacks and whites co-exist, they vote differently. It's not just the south. The difference is a matter of degree.

I just wanted to point out that some generalizations can be a little dangerous. Southern politics seem to be dominated by blacks voting one way, and whites the other, and currently the GOP is the party for the whites. So I don't think that the situation there can be compared to that of other parts of the country. I think it primarily depends on what kind of experiences you get. If the majority of immigrants or people with another skin colour, that you have met have been criminals, then you're more likely to become racist, and vice versa.

I don't if there's much point in attacking sterotypes, like "limousine liberals", so I won't start with "redneck conservatives"...

The difference between limousine liberals and redneck conservatives is that redneck conservatives come much closer to practicing what they preach.

In most areas where blacks and whites co-exist, they vote differently. It's not just the south. The difference is a matter of degree.

Most people with extremist beliefes are hypocritical, in one way or another. Moderation often originates from a will to be consistent.

Exactly what is a "racist" area? By your definition, that is an area that contains only white people, who claim to be extremely tolerant of minorities, as long as there are no minorities around to be tolerant of. The term "limousine liberal" comes to mind. Tolerance is very easy when it demands nothing of you.

I think there is something to the observation that whites who live with other races are more conservative than those who do not. If you live in an area in which you are paying a real price for liberal policies, in terms of failing education, high taxes, and high crime, then yes, you may well become less "tolerant" of the liberal policies that are hurting your quality of life than you would be if you were living in areas where liberal policies don't have that same cost. And because liberal policies hold that white people are to blame for all problems, these policies tend to pit white people against others, and push whites away from those policies, in a way that does not happen where the races do not live together, such as in Vermont or Oregon.

I live in a "liberal" area that is very "tolerant." On the block on live on now, I have never seen a single non-white person (other than those who have come to visit me). I live right now our local high school, and I have never seen a single black kid going into that school, though the statistics say that it is all of 1% black. When I sold my last house, a couple of my neighbors passed warnings to me about not selling my house to blacks. There is no public housing -- it would never be allowed. And yet it is a mecca of "tolerance" according to those who live here.

Right next door to my town is a city with significant numbers of blacks and Puerto Ricans. It has high taxes, high crime and bad schools. Of course, the whites living there are very "racist" and make sure they live in separate neighborhoods from blacks, and that their kids are in private schools. But are they really any less "tolerant" than those in my town who mouth tolerance, but make sure they live miles away from any minorities? The people in my town simply have more economic options, and that allows them to make a fake pose of tolerance that those living in mixed areas can't make without significantly, and perhaps fatally, compromising their quality of life.

I personally have no tolerance for limousine liberals who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Actually black people and white people often vote the same way, generally the lower down the political tree the office is the more likely you are to see no racial voting.At least in the Deep South (I've not looked into it anywhere else).

Actually black people and white people often vote the same way, generally the lower down the political tree the office is the more likely you are to see no racial voting.At least in the Deep South (I've not looked into it anywhere else).

It's sometimes true but not always. In the last 3 New York City mayoral elections, all of which had, for a change, a viable candidate from each major party, voting was almost entirely along racial lines. Blacks and guilty white Manhattan limousine liberals voted Democratic, while middle and working class whites voted Republican. The big issue was crime, and most whites were quite explicit in blaming blacks for the prevalence of crime. It's interesting to see this in a "liberal" bastion of "tolerance" such as New York.

Can someone to explain why Northwest states (I mean only Washington and Oregon) are fairly liberal? Huge majority of population is white and there is a little minorities. (quite much Asian though) So there is no "natural" reason for this blooming of liberalism.

Of course Democrats' support is concentrated Seattle's and Portland's metropolitan areas, but there is also pretty liberal areas in Washington rural coast region (some poor fishing villages, I assume) and in western Oregon. In Dave's election maps there are lot of red colour in these rural areas at least since 1960. (As your know there is no countylevel information before 1960 in Dave's pages)

The reasons for the liberalism in the Northwest are complicated, but one thing you mention interests me. As you say, the Northwest is very white, with few minorities. The same could be said of places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and some of the liberal states of New England. Many Southern states, which are only 60-70% white are strongly Republican in spite of near total Democrat voting by the minority groups. Also, even California, which is very Democratic has a very large percentage of its white minority that are conservative Republicans. The obvious generalization is this - whites are more liberal when they are living in segregation, and much more conservative when living with other races.

That might hold true in some situations, but of course whites in NY are quite liberal, and whites in the lily-white states of ID, UT, WY, ND, etc. are quite conservative.

You guys actually don't realize how right supersoulty was, Idaho is receiving ... honestly, thousands of Californians yearly. I swear the DNC is trying to lessen our Republican views. Then again it could be the vastly lower taxes.

Well I can't blame anyone for wanting to leave California. But I still think that most escapees from CA will be more conservative than those that remain, on average. Leaving for lower taxed, free-er pastures is by definition a right-wing, individualist act.